“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit we have to combine spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthy to pay a little
more in taxes,” Obama said in public remarks at the White House. “Right now if Congress fails to come to an agreement on an overall deficit
reduction package by the end of the year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up on January 1.”

What? Threaten citizens unless he gets his way? Nice way to be president "for all the people."

YES! It's about time he played hardball with the GOP. He knows they won't call his bluff. Now we're gonna get some stuff done!!!!

Even if they call Obama's "bluff"; as a middle of the road middle class citizen, I'm willing to tighten my belt and let the Bush tax cuts expire for
all....just on principle....YES, us liberals have principles too! Let's see who flinches first.

I agree that the constitution should be amended as needed. I have never said to the contrary.

There is always someone more versed in the writings of the founders than the other. This does not mean that I am unaware of much of their works and
views.

I have never seen anything, your evidence included, that would suggest that the founders would have favored an ever expanding government that has
control, one way or another, over every aspect of life. Nor would that have been in favor of restricting more and more rights and liberties.

There are things that are not included in the Constitution with respect to the role and responsibility of the federal government, that I think should
have been expanded on over time. However, funding and controling education is not one of them. Has it worked for us thus far? In the earliest days of
public education, there was some benefit, but as with the government in general, as it has expanded and assumed more control, it has been to the
detriment of the children and the nation as a whole.

When expanding the role of government via constitution, we have to ask ourselves, is this necessary? Can the states not handle that role? Is the
private sector unable to meet the needs lacking by the government not providing this? With education, it is still a resounding No for somethign the
federal government should provide or run.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
Even if they call Obama's "bluff"; as a middle of the road middle class citizen, I'm willing to tighten my belt and let the Bush tax cuts expire
for all....just on principle....YES, us liberals have principles too! Let's see who flinches first.

I just love it every time a liberal says "Bush tax cuts" make me all giggly inside...

You better put some more holes in that belt...we are going to need to raise taxes on everyone..including you middle class liberals that believe
Obama's promise he will not raise taxes on the middle class...lol

He will blame it all on Bush I'm sure and you will believe him, so it is all good.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
Even if they call Obama's "bluff"; as a middle of the road middle class citizen, I'm willing to tighten my belt and let the Bush tax cuts expire for
all....just on principle....YES, us liberals have principles too! Let's see who flinches first.

I just love it every time a liberal says "Bush tax cuts" make me all giggly inside...

You better put some more holes in that belt...we are going to need to raise taxes on everyone..including you middle class liberals that believe
Obama's promise he will not raise taxes on the middle class...lol

He will blame it all on Bush I'm sure and you will believe him, so it is all good.

I'll take the tax hike just to watch you suffer. Is that blunt enough for you? Forget "Bush tax cuts"....this is a Leather N Lace tax increase aimed
directly at you and your ilk. I can afford it and welcome it...how about you?

One of my favorite political ads was a pro-Romney ad of a woman in a rather large house, watching a video on an iPad with a television in her kitchen
stating she can't afford another four years of Obama.

One of my favorite political ads was a pro-Romney ad of a woman in a rather large house, watching a video on an iPad with a television in her kitchen
stating she can't afford another four years of Obama.

If only they had shown the rest of her response...you know, the part where she said she couldn't afford another 2 years of Romney...

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I'll take the tax hike just to watch you suffer. Is that blunt enough for you? Forget "Bush tax cuts"....this is a Leather N Lace tax increase
aimed directly at you and your ilk. I can afford it and welcome it...how about you?

No suffering on my end...I can take 7 dollar gas, increase in tax, double cost of living....ya it sucks but I'm lifestyle would not change much...

Now...take a family that made 60k in 2008, well they need to make 80k today for the same buying power and most likely 100k in four years. We can tax
the rich 100% and it will not come close to covering the bill, so that means middle America will need to pay more than their 8% average they pay
now.

BTW I get crap for tax cuts....I don't get a 401k, no child tax credit etc....so having Bush "tax cuts" expire means almost nothing to me.

It's really amazing to think that just a week or more ago, most people were readily agreeing that both were basically worthless. Even those supporting
one over the other tended to agree (some more grudgingly than others) that their choice wasn't that much different.

Now, after Obama won by 2%.....The control of the Senate remained fundamentally unchanged and the house remained fundamentally unchanged, it's revenge
city and ugly ugly winning coupled with some pretty sour lemons on the right,

Those 16 trillion little steps into the abyss (about to be debt limit raised to over 18 trillion...at least they get a Merry Xmas in Washington

) are still there. Have so many forgotten that? We're still in a slow motion train wreck and damned if it wasn't easier to find agreement without HATE
from all sides before the election that it is after it with a victory no one disputes for once.

PLEASE stop allowing your party to nominate completely brain-dead sheep f@ckers to represent your party in presidential elections. It's complete
nonsense to take seriously candidates that INSULT the intelligence of all Americans with an IQ above 88. Only biased fools or racist bigots actually
took Mitt seriously, the rest of you only voted for him because he was who your party chose to represent you.

It's your choice, make changes or the GOP will be gone and read about in history books.

I'm not a democrat but was forced to vote for Obama because of this ridiculous nonsense.

Unpaid for, added to our debt, didn't help unemployment at all even when extended by Obama.

vs.

Obma's tax raise.

Which isn't a raise in taxes, just ending the Bush era tax cuts, will force companies to do something called business to make up for the slightly
higher tax burden. More business equals more jobs, more jobs equals more money in the economy, more money in the economy means more business.

It was their number one priority because there are (in their own words) two Americas, the America of the one percent, which they serve,, who they
refer to as the "real Americans", and the rest of us. They don't consider Obama to represent their America, so he had to be a one term president. We
live in a two tiered society, and the upper tier is fine as long as things are OK for them, they could care less if you cannot find a decent job or
your children starve. They try to rationalize it with all the "job creator" and "freeloader" nonsense, its really state sanctioned sociopathy. This is
why they love Ayn Rand so much, they feel it gives some level of legitimacy to their cold cruelty. To them, we are the slave class, nothing more. And
they are right, because, as the majority of people are experiencing, if you only make enough money to get from one paycheck to the next, without a
chance at any sort of prosperity, what else are you? This is why they want to defund education and social programs, because in their minds, they think
its silly that slaves should get such perks. So when Obama started talking about actually improving things for the rabble, he had to be a one term
president. The far right is living in a separate reality from the real one. In it, they think global warming is a hoax, people don't want to make a
living wage or have affordable healthcare or have a chance at a decent education, and that social security's is an entitlement program. So when Obama
wins an election, they are flabbergasted.

They were followed quite closely by almost all media outlets in Europe.
The main question that kept popping up: why did the Republicans insist on putting forward the weirdest, most incapable candidates? None of them
instilled the "statesman-vibe" Caine? Santorum? Bachmann? C'mon you cannot be considered a "serious" party, when people like that take the
forefront.

Did they wánt to lose the elections? Orrr.. Were the "classic-Republicans", comfortable as they thought themselves, caught off-guard by the rabid
right strangeness that suddenly took over?
As a rule, the American voter has always voted somewhat right-from-the-middle, and the current batch of extreme right-wingers didnot connect well with
a lot of voters. What I hear the most is that they "chose the lesser evil"

That does not bode well for America's electoral system.

(BY the by, by the tea-party's "pureness-rules" even Reagan would be a radical liberal).

Suffice to say, the Republican campaign had many of us shaking their heads.

We don't have any money for another stimulus. What color is the sky in your world? Take all the rich's money away and it fund government for 3
months right? I think i read that somewhere. I really don't understand the big government crowd. What the hell has the Government ever done well?
They suck at everything they touch. You put a bunch of bureaucrats in charge of a yearly county Bake Off and in 10 years it will employ 5 people full
time year around and cost 5 million to host.

This government was fine, with Constitutional Protections included to prevent the disparity we see now. It is the dismantlement of the peoples
protections that put us in the precarious position we are in. It was catering to special interest groups and ignoring the role of government to
regulate and assure a fair and equitable playing field for all.

Big government?

Oh, I'd much rather have Big Corporations..... NOT.

Business wants less government for the same reason thieves would like to see fewer Police Officers.

You are a pawn for industry who wants to subvert the workers and create conditions so bad they will practically work for free just to have a job.

And if you think there is not that faction in this you are blind.
And if you do not recognize who they are by what they do
you are not able to string coherent thoughts together and hopeless anyway.

One of my favorite political ads was a pro-Romney ad of a woman in a rather large house, watching a video on an iPad with a television in her kitchen
stating she can't afford another four years of Obama.

I hated that commercial!
Funny thing is I never realized all the irony that was present, in what you just pointed out.
And I saw the friggin thing at least 10 times a day! Excellent call!

Yeah...aren't you one of the guys who told us Romney was going to win this thing in a landslide?

Yes, I was. I really couldn't see how any President could survive reelection with the economy of the last 4 years. I believed old baldy when Clinton
first was elected, he said, "It's the economy stupid." Meaning elections are about the economy.

But, to be honest. What else can we expect? The Republicans control the House and Dem's didn't pick up enough seats in the Senate to override a veto
right? So what do you think were going to get? More partisan horse#. Do you have faith in our Elected officials to come together and fix the issues?
Really?

I would prefer the Democrats or Republicans controlled it all. Then we could either fix the issues or see who CAN"T fix the issues. This divisiveness
is bad for us all.

Look at the blue states county election maps. You'll see the Democrats control some very large cities. That's their electorate. Large cities. Not
the whole country just a handful of metropolitan areas. I feel bad for us. I really think we are FUBAR.

Your doom and gloom doesn't take into consideration the many optimistic signs of what was a doomed economy going over a cliff in 08.

You were so dead set on seeing everything as negative you did not consider how optimistic and positive it appears to many others. Not to takers but to
workers. Union members voted Obama overwhelmingly. Unions have issues but their main purpose is justified. Protecting the worker. And they are the
workers. We saw them in the streets of NY and NJ saving lives and property during Sandy. We need more of them. What the opposite team is voting for
being anti-union is this: CHEAP LABOR.

Stop protecting a bunch of rich at the top who don't need protection because they're doing just fine on their own. Ironically a lot of them are rich
liberals who won't even vote R and publicly advocate for more taxes and donate lots of money to charity. Being taxed at 15% or 35% won't make a
difference because they will keep making money - just less of it. But their natural greed and inclination to make more money will keep the real "job
creators" going.

Stop being socially conservative. Hating gays, imposing religious views on women, trying to deport all illegals won't work too well. Let gays marry
and be as miserable as heteros, let women have their abortions and bear their own consequences and legalize and tax all the illegals for the services
they're using. Would you rather have cheap illegal labor drive down the wages for all of us? Would you rather have foster children and orphans or
welfare moms which are supported at tax payers' expense?

Stop being anti-worker. Unions may have crossed some lines but that doesn't mean they're bad at the core. Paid vacation, sick time, 40 hour
workweek, unemployment insurance are all benefits that have been secured by unions.

Stop the war on the poor and needy. The 47% remark was what pushed me over the cliff and I've voted every republican out of office. It just shows how
out of touch they are to label half the country takers and useless eaters. Lots of low income people work AND need more income to get by. The elderly
paid into the system as much as they had to. Vets served their country. Would you rather have all the poor living on streets? How many prisons will we
need to pay for to keep them out of view and how many cops to keep them away from our property?

The message of small government needs to be refined. It needs to sound like a government that will only serve social needs rather than help those in
power to keep power. Cut spending on wars, keep an elite mercenary military, invest in schools and research and public health so that we have an
educated, healthy nation.

The US is still the place where every other human on the planet wants to live. Take these values and promote them rather than spewing out the
Limbaugh/Bachmann/Beck hate and ignorance!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.